Míng Gōng Shǐ 明宮史
Records of the Míng Palace by 呂毖 (校次)
About the work
A 5-juǎn compilation describing the late-Míng imperial palace—buildings, towers, ceremonial dress, food, banquets, internal entertainments, and (notoriously) the jurisdictional powers of the Twelve Inner-Court Eunuch Bureaus—edited by Lǚ Bì 呂毖 (a late-Míng eunuch about whom the Sìkù editors say they have no further information; CBDB lists his life-dates as 1611–1664). The work has had a contentious reception: the Sìkù editors, who placed it in the imperial archives only with strong qualification (their tíyào contains an extended denunciation of the late-Míng eunuchocracy), preserved it explicitly as a “warning of the failed past” (qián chē zhī jiàn 前車之鑒), citing the imperial ruling as the volume’s prefatory directive. The work serves as a unique documentary source for late-Míng palace topography and inner-court administration.
Tiyao
The old text bears the inscription Lúchéng Chìyǐn Lǚ Bì jiàocì 蘆城赤隱呂毖校次. Lǚ Bì’s biography is unknown; he was an end-of-Míng eunuch. The work describes the palaces, towers, dress, food, banquets, and various inner-court matters of the time. Mostly trivial, vulgar detail not worth taking as authoritative. The “Eunuch Departments’ Functions” section claims that the Sīlǐjiān Director and Brush-Holder were “of rank equal to the Senior Grand Secretary, of power equal to the Zǒngxiàn (Grand Censor-in-Chief)“—reckless and false.
The eunuch power of past dynasties has nowhere been so heavy, the eunuch disasters so deep, as in the Míng. For over two hundred years they seized the great handle, muddled the court order, until the dynasty collapsed in ruin and the people in catastrophe—worse than Hàn, Táng, Sòng, or Yuán knew. By the very end, having long held authority undisputedly, they took freedom-and-favor as if it were their own; they then wrote it boldly into books like this. Tracing the dynasty’s path to fall, while many things contributed, the trust given to diāodāng (high eunuchs) was at the root of the disease. The man may be condemned; his record yet serves as a warning mirror.
The Jiā yǔ records that the four gates of the Zhōu Míngtáng had images of Jié and Zhòu. The Yílǐ Xiāngshèlǐ says the Sīshè goes to the west of the hall and orders the disciples to prepare the fēng (a ceremonial vessel); Chén Xiángdào’s Lǐshū says the old diagram shows a human figure—the meaning is “the rich state’s lord, drunk on wine, lost his country”; the figure is set up as a warning. The Hànshū preface records that on the imperial throne’s curtain a screen was painted showing Zhòu drunk and pawing Dájǐ in a long-night revel; Bān Bó too took it as a warning against drunkenness. Are these not borrowing the predecessor’s wagon to show its overturning, so that those after may think on fear?
Our dynasty, from the sage emperors onward, has had stern household discipline; eunuchs do no more than sweep and clean; if they violate the law, they receive proper punishment—we need not invoke the Zhōu guān’s entrustment of authority to the Zhǒngzǎi. The imperial vault is sealed, the inner palaces clean. This is enough to lay down the model for ten thousand ages. Yet, anticipating the smallest breach, with deep foresight, the emperor has specially ordered this work transcribed and placed in the imperial archives, marking the prior dynasty’s path to ruin and chaos so that all the future may see clearly. As the Shàngshū says: “The Yīn warning is not far—it is in the age of the Hòu of Xià.” As the Dà yǎ says: “Look upon the Yīn.” So Hàn Gāozǔ asked Lù Jiǎ to write the Xīnyǔ, “to record what Qín lost and what we have gained.” When the era is closer, the warning to consult is clearer. Our August Emperor, in inspecting the inner-palace book-collection, saw this title, refuted its errors yet preserved it. The sage’s sight is great. We have respectfully recorded the imperial ruling at the head of the volume, observing the personal exercise of judgment over assembled views, settling a great compilation of unprecedented form. The principle is exhortation and warning, the language framed as model and caution—not for ornamentation or treasure-keeping.
Abstract
The work is a compilation, possibly drawing on the much larger Zhuō zhōng zhì 酌中志 of Liú Ruòyú 劉若愚 (an end-of-Wànlì eunuch’s memoir, 24 juǎn, also surviving), but specifically Lǚ Bì’s edited version. Composition probably late Wànlì or Tiānqǐ, with the surviving text in 5-juǎn recension fixed in early Qīng. Lǚ Bì’s CBDB dates 1611–1664; the dating bracket here (1644–1660) reflects the early-Qīng moment when the work was edited and made known to the imperial archives. The catalog meta gives Lǚ Bì’s role as jiàocì (collator), confirming that he is the editor rather than the author of the underlying text.
The Sìkù editors’ decision to include this minor work, with their disapproval framed as a positive ideological function (“warning of the previous wagon”), is unusually explicit. The Qiánlóng emperor’s personal directive on the work (that it be retained as a warning rather than destroyed) is documented in the imperial preface that opens the volume.
Translations and research
Standard editions: Wényuāngé Sìkù. The much larger and unedited Liú Ruò-yú Zhuō zhōng zhì (which underlies this work) is published in punctuated edition: Liú Ruò-yú, Zhuō zhōng zhì, ed. Féng Bǎo-shàn 馮寶善 (Běijīng gǔjí chūbǎn-shè, 1994). Western literature on late-Míng eunuchs draws on both works: see Tsai Shih-shan Henry, The Eunuchs in the Ming Dynasty (SUNY Press, 1996), the foundational treatment.
Other points of interest
The Sìkù editors’ polemic against the Míng eunuch system is one of the most direct ideological prefaces in the entire Sìkù corpus. It functions as a boundary-marker: this is what the Qīng administrative order is not.